mattbauer

I could see an argument where moving existing hardware Kexts to user space is easier because IOKit uses the libkern C++ Runtime. The OO design of IOKit may lend itself very nicely to the driver approach BarrelFish takes (http://www.barrelfish.org). The real hard one to move to user space would be third-party filesystems. That's mainly because of dated VFS architecture used in *NIX systems. I could see Apple completely moving away from that at a future point too.

So in the future, we are going to tighten down access to the system hierarchy, the whole hierarchy down from /System and everything in there.

Another example of them sharing future plans was user space networking. I forgot what year it was but in the session they noted something about network kernel extensions (NKE) going away and to use Network Extensions instead. NKEs weren't the best but for Apple to send all the effort to recreate the 'same' thing in a new framework was odd. A visit to the labs and you were instantly told of the move to user space networking.

One last example. Apple ships in the default OS a number of third party mass storage kernel drivers. Take a look at /Library/Extensions on a new install. This ensure when you try to install that new OS or boot that new OS, you can see you're drives. Apple likely needs to work with those third-parties to make that happen.

I understand why it might appear sneaky but I don't think that's the case.

1. Add -zc and -zp to your boot args. It's not documented but it greatly helps catch zone allocation problems (OSMalloc/OSFree/buffer overrun) issues.

2. Use snapshots instead of rebooting. It's much faster to revert back to a snapshot than to reboot your virtual machine instance after a crash.

3. If you use a shared directory between your instance and host machine for moving your KEXTs/other code, make sure to MD5 the files before loading. It's very common for the instance to be using stale cached blocks.

4. While not necessary, I create a separate network interface that's host only to debug on. I give it a static ip and add an entry to my host's host file. It makes debugging instances easier to do since I can connect by name, i.e. kdb-remote vm0.

- Assumes the Chinese put the backdoor in. There are plenty of others interested in backdoors. - Assumes the designing company doesn't do any detailed production product checks. Not likely since this is a many, many billion dollar business. - Claims a systemic problem but only notes one chip. That one FPGA could just have a design flaw. Need more details on the others. - At the end it claims an investigation over ten years but the fab world has greatly changed over ten years. Many micro controller companies actually own their Chinese fabs now.

As a side note, if you discover something like this, don't assume you found something you weren't meant to find. You're discovery may just have made you found.

In any case I think you're right that the tell tale signs are there.

If you haven't made enough on your exits to angel invest, then you built lifestyle companies which I understand Project Skyway doesn't want. Additionally, you're providing advice to entrepreneurs on how to create something which you haven't done yourself. That would give me pause if I was applying. Maybe your just providing your network to entrepreneurs for a fee (the equity stake Project Skyway takes). In that case, your price is much too large compared to Angel List and your value is significantly less.

I have started, built and successfully exited from a couple of different companies, so I know it can be done.

Given this, how many angel investments in MN web/mobile/social/etc startups have you made?

My company is specifically listed as an example of a company you're not interested in on your website FAQ and you just checked out our website? Additionally I say something challenging about Project Skyway and you ask me to join your network? Thanks but you're better served by guys like Rob Weber and Justin Kaufenberg. They made it. I'm just in the process of.

we chose not to entertain any device companies like yours because we do not have the expertise, network or resources to benefit these types of companies at this point.

This is the part I just don't get. MN has more expertise in MedDev (Medtronic, Guidant, Mayo, United Health Care, etc) and hardware (Compellent, Xiotech, Cray, IBM, etc) than anything else. I guess I would add advertising to that list (Fallon, Olsen, Brew).

If you don't fell for the spell of the coasts, that is, and continue to enjoy what MN has to offer to our entrepreneurial community.

I'm staying. See above for the reason.

In the end Cem you've made a bet with your own money. We'll see how it plays out.

Ah more MN Nice.

You say "You are left funding founders not dedicated enough to their startups to move and give their startups the best chance." Interpreted another way: everyone not smart enough or driven enough to move to the Valley we'll be stuck with. Second raters.

No interpretation needed. I said dedicated enough. You stated they weren't smart enough or driven enough.

But you're missing the point: Is this pool still good enough? In the pool of 5,000 rejected YC and TS applicants per year are there any winners? We think so. We think there are a lot. Chicago is a far cry from SV or NYC yet a full half of Accelerate Labs' last class went on to raise an impressive angel round. 50% follow on funding is nothing to sneeze at no matter how you measure it. Most accelerator programs cross their fingers for that.*

Geography does not dictate success. If so, Phoenix would have more successful incubators than Boulder.

You say "Thanks to Angel List you don't have to pay an accelerator for access". You just made raising a round leveraging AL sound really easy. You've found success with it -- is it really that easy? But even so, how do you think companies that are a tad too early for that going to maximize their chances of getting to that point? A Pedal Brain c. 2009?

It is that easy. If you can't get to the point of a prototype, you shouldn't be funded. If you can't convince someone to work for equity/options to get you to a prototype, you shouldn't be funded.

You bring up good points, and I think that they lead to the fact we appear to be "just another YC". Stay tuned. This is just our first class (what we call a cycle). In 2012 and beyond we'll be focusing much more on niche cycles. Ones that are absolutely perfect for this ecosystem. See this year merely as our test drive, but we know we're not perfect. Factor that in before you short us into the ground. =)

Do the startups applying this year and giving you 6% of their founder shares understand it's just a test drive this year?

Things brings up a problem see with project skyway. You are left funding founders not dedicated enough to their startups to move and give their startups the best chance. I would have serious reservations about investing in such a founder.

Incumbators were great even two years ago but now they really aren't as necessary. Thanks to Angel List you don't have to pay an accelerator for access to the network. In the world of Angel List an accelerator is actually a decelerator. If you have an idea for a startup, get a prototype done and submit it to Angel List. If it's got merit, you'll get interest. If not, move onto something else. I view project skyway more as a founder school that you pay with equity rather than an accelerator. I wish it would market itself as such.

The Midwest can kick the coasts' ass any day of the week but not with the type of companies project skyway wants. It's with the type of companies it specifically doesn't want.

I wish project skyway the best (that's Minnesota nice for I don't think it will work).

While new rules are in place for the new bubble they only apply to startups operating in the bubble. All other startups should continue following the rules for their respective sphere. Entrepreneurs should continue to start startups in any sphere.

He talks about four paths to startup liquidity. I hope he noted the latter doesn't replace the former. It should seem obvious but in the world of the new iPad making the original iPad a paperweight, I don't think it is. I'd argue for the continued validity of the former business models.

I wrote in more detail about this on my blog:

http://mattbauer.github.com/2011/03/13/new-rules-for-the-new...